Submited on: 25 Sep 2010 06:53:42 PM GMT
Published on: 25 Sep 2010 08:44:19 PM GMT
 
Critical appraisal of case report
Posted by Dr. William Kent on 18 Jun 2011 07:42:20 AM GMT

1 Is the subject of the article within the scope of the subject category? Yes
2 Are the interpretations / conclusions sound and justified by the data? Yes
3 Is this a new and original contribution? Yes
4 Does this paper exemplify an awareness of other research on the topic? Yes
5 Are structure and length satisfactory? No
6 Can you suggest brief additions or amendments or an introductory statement that will increase the value of this paper for an international audience? Yes
7 Can you suggest any reductions in the paper, or deletions of parts? No
8 Is the quality of the diction satisfactory? Yes
9 Are the illustrations and tables necessary and acceptable? Yes
10 Are the references adequate and are they all necessary? No
11 Are the keywords and abstract or summary informative? Yes
  • Other Comments:

    Critical appraisal1 

     

    Criteria

    Comment

    Evaluation*

    Research Question

    Study design:

    Case report

    CRD evidence level = 4

    Population:

    1 case of Os radiostyloideum, misdiagnosed as fracture of the radial styloid

    Y

     

    Intervention/

    Exposure:

     

    N

     

     

    Comparison/

    Control:

     

     

     

    N

    Outcome:

     

    CGO

    EGO

    1

     

     

    2

     

     

    3

     

     

     

    N

     Follow-up duration:

     

     

    N

    Minimizing bias, confounding & chance

    Recruitment

    Randomization

     

    Inclusion criteria

     

    Exclusion criteria

     

     

    N

    Allocation

     

     

    N/A

    Maintenance

     

     

    N/A

    Measurement

    blinding

     

    objectivity

     

     

     

     

    N

    Statistical analysis

    Sample size calc.

     

    ES

     

    p or precision

     

    Intention to Rx

     

     

    N

    Outcomes

    Relative risk (RR) = EGO/CGO

     

     

     

    N/A

    Risk (Absolute) difference (RD) = EGO – CGO

     

     

     

     

    N/A

    NNT = 1/RD

     

     

    N/A

    Adequacy of reporting

    Suggested checklist for writing case studies2

    7/9

    * Y = adequate; N = inadequate; ? = unsure/not reported; n/a = not applicable

               

    Evaluation, limitations & suggestions for improvements

    The previous review is noted and the points raised are agreed with, in addition I would add:

     

    The interesting feature of this case is its educational value in thinking of accessory bones in your differential diagnosis. The history and examination is briefly but adequately explained. The radiographs are clear and support the rhetoric of the case report as well as allowing the reader to make their own interpretation.  The discussion of the case is limited and referencing is sparse. I would like to see a more in depth discussion of methods to distinguish between normal anatomical variants and acute injury.  Perhaps a diagnostic checklist or algorithm could be suggested which would increase the educational value of the article.

    In summery: an interesting case with educational value worthy of publication.

     

    References

    Critical appraisal method adapted from:

     1.                   Jackson R, Ameratunga S, Broad J, Connor J, Lethaby A, Robb G, et al. The GATE frame: critical appraisal with pictures. Evidence Based Medicine. 2006 Apr 1;11(2):35 -38.

    Adequacy of reporting as per checklist from :

    2.                   Sorinola O, Olufowobi O, Coomarasamy A, Khan KS. Instructions to authors for case reporting are limited: A review of a core journal list. BMC Med Educ. 4:4-4.

  • Competing interests:
    No competing interests.
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    No
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    No
  • References:
    None
  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    Foundation trainee & Sports scientist

  • How to cite:  Kent W .Critical appraisal of case report[Review of the article 'Os Radiostyloideum- Misdiagnosed as fracture in the Emergency Room ' by Suresh S].WebmedCentral 2011;2(6):WMCRW00828
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 

1 Is the subject of the article within the scope of the subject category? Yes
2 Are the interpretations / conclusions sound and justified by the data? Yes
3 Is this a new and original contribution? Yes
4 Does this paper exemplify an awareness of other research on the topic? Yes
5 Are structure and length satisfactory? Yes
6 Can you suggest brief additions or amendments or an introductory statement that will increase the value of this paper for an international audience? Yes
7 Can you suggest any reductions in the paper, or deletions of parts? No
8 Is the quality of the diction satisfactory? Yes
9 Are the illustrations and tables necessary and acceptable? Yes
10 Are the references adequate and are they all necessary? Yes
11 Are the keywords and abstract or summary informative? Yes
  • Other Comments:

    This case is of interest both for the unusual nature of the findings and also for the educational benefit. Accessory ossicles are most often found associated with the feet and ankles. As, the author points out, just one case of a radial styolid accessory ossicle is found in medline. It is right to say that the rarity of findings makes misdiagnosis possible and inappropriate treatment likely.

     

    The radiographs presented are quite clear and easy to view.

    The paper could be expanded for educational benefit. The accessory ossicle is shown in figures 1b and 1c  clearly. The proximal surface of these ossicles has a clearly demarked, smooth cortex. This would not be expected in an acute fracture. A further educational point could therefore be made that even if you don't know of rare anatomical variants, by careful inspection it is possible to distinguish between an acute injury requiring treatment and a well corticated old fragment or variant not needing further intervention.

  • Competing interests:
    No
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    No
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    No
  • References:
    None
  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    I have worked in trauma and orthopaedics for several years. I regularly teach students.

  • How to cite:  Manning S R.Review of Os Radiostyloideum - Misdiagnosed as a fracture in the Emergency Room[Review of the article 'Os Radiostyloideum- Misdiagnosed as fracture in the Emergency Room ' by Suresh S].WebmedCentral 2011;2(5):WMCRW00755
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse